(1) Field of the Invention
This invention relates to harvesters and more particularly to a cotton harvester with a stalk shredder mounted immediately behind the harvester elements.
(2) Description of the Prior Art
Cotton grown in the United States today is mechanically harvested. Also, customarily after the cotton is harvested, the stalks are cut or shredded.
Before my invention, other workers in the field had suggested that the stalk shredder be attached to the harvesting machine. All the previous workers had put this stalk cutting element behind the entire machine. Normally the harvesting element is carried by a vehicle having front wheels and rear wheels, and the harvesting element is normally between the front and rear wheels. However, before my invention, all of the shredders, which were mounted on such harvesters, were mounted behind the rear wheels. Normally, the elevator for elevating the harvested cotton to an overhead basket is mounted behind the rear wheels. By also mounting the shredder behind the rear wheels, this increases the weight behind the rear wheels, which tends to unbalance the machine as a whole, putting too much weight too far to the rear.
Also it is desirable that the stalks be cut as close to the ground as possible. Putting the cutter behind the rear wheels, makes it more difficult to adjust the height of which the cotton stalk is to be cut. Furthermore, putting the shredder behind the rear wheels, extends the total length of the equipment, extending much of the equipment further behind the rear wheels than it would otherwise extend.
McCRARY U.S. Pat. No. 3,600,877 shows a combination of a harvester and shredder.
Before this patent application was made, applicant caused a search of the prior art to be made in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to McCRARY, the following patents were reported to him in that search.
POEHLS, U.S. Pat. No. 2,843,991
RIETZ, U.S. Pat. No. 2,891,369
THORNTON, U.S. Pat. No. 3,095,680
LLEVERS, U.S. Pat. No. 3,596,445
SHUNICHI U.S. Pat. No. 3,925,969
Applicant does not consider these patents to be pertinent; however, the applicant thought the Examiner would be interested in them inasmuch as they were reported by an experienced patent searcher.